West will be losers if Gaddafi holds on

Paul McGeough

Muammar Gaddafi looks like a flake, so we don't expect logic from him. But with all their fine suits and braided uniforms, we do expect it from those higher up in a Western military campaign that still does not have a clearly identified leadership and cannot agree on its objective.

After repeatedly being told this was Europe's war, it was revealed in the muddied waters of talk shows and background briefings that for now at least, the Americans run it.

When American Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked who was in charge, he replied: "[We are] leading it now. We're looking to hand off that leadership in the next few days."

To the Europeans? Not so fast, say the Turks, who late on Sunday blocked a deal for NATO to take control of the no-fly zone over Libya. Back to the drawing boards on that one.

Related Content

So if we don't know who is leading, then surely we understand the objective - yes?

Seemingly, no. The British Defence Secretary, Liam Fox, thinks that Gaddafi is a legitimate target for Western air strikes, but despite the Obama administration rhetoric of the past couple of weeks, Washington disagrees - "we're not going after Gaddafi," Vice Admiral Bill Gortney told reporters. But if that's the case, why the plumes of black smoke near the presidential compound?

Advertisement

With all that uncertainty, the Western leaders surely are blessed to have the support of the 23-nation Arab League, which endorsed calls for a no-fly zone. Well yes they did, but now it is unclear.

The league's outgoing Secretary-General, Amr Moussa, condemned the manner in which the no-fly zone was imposed though at a press conference yesterday he tried to strike a note of unity.

So where is the common ground? Oddly, it can be found in the trans-national efforts to twist the words of the UN Security Council resolution to make it mean … well, almost anything. In a moment of refreshing frankness, Mullen warned of a stalemate as he admitted he was unclear on ''the endgame''.

And while Barack Obama utters words that sound like a prohibition on American boots on the Libyan soil, the British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, argued that the UN resolution's prohibition on an ''occupying force'' does not preclude Western ground forces entering Libya - "I don't think it means you can't have a ground invasion," he said.

This talk of ground war was prompted by the realisation that even the most successful no-fly zone, of which the Libyan exercise appears to be one, does not necessarily serve to halt Gaddafi's attacks on his own people - he was not using aircraft as he laid siege to the rebel-held city of Misrata on Sunday.

That realisation appears to have come as a surprise to some, though a couple of British commentators pulled up a sensible observation from the Prime Minister, David Cameron, a few weeks back - "[you can't] drop democracy from 40,000 feet".

The UN mandate goes no further than a ceasefire

Cameron had studied recent conflicts - both Kosovo and Iraq had proved that to complete the job that older men thought might be resolved with a bombing run or two, young men had to be sent in with guns.

The UN mandate goes no further than a ceasefire that stops Gaddafi maiming and killing his own people.

Mullen acknowledged the military mission as envisaged by the UN could be accomplished with Gaddafi still in power. At this stage, Gaddafi is like the insurgent who does not have to win, in order to win. He merely has to not lose, as Saddam Hussein did for a solid 12 years after the Kuwait crisis.

Obama, Cameron and the rest don't have that luxury - if Gaddafi remains in office, they are the losers. Hence the expert speculation that the Libya campaign has a long way to go.

Steven Clemons, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, spoke bluntly to The New York Times - "Barack Obama told Gaddafi to go. If Gaddafi doesn't go, America will look diminished in the eyes of the world."